Re: Archosaur Origins...was:MESENOSAURUS ERRATA.

[ELurio@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/31/01 12:11:13 AM, Dinogeorge@aol.com writes:

<< << This does not seem to be a matter of "educating the public" but rather 
a 
matter of establishing all stems based on only the living members, which 
contradicts the fossil inclusion.... It is doubtful anyone would use the 
redefinitions in such a manner. >>

I see nothing contradictory in the system I outlined. What could be simpler? 
If it's more closely related to modern birds than to any other animals, why 
not call it a bird (or, if you like, bird sensu lato)? >>

Well, why not continue to use the prefixes proto- and para- to indicate close 
releations that are not *exactly* "kosher?"

The use of terms "therapsid paramammal" for the likes of the trytlodonts, or 
protomammal for permian and early triassic cynodonts have been used in 
popular works on the subject for decades, and if you think about it calling 
creteceous maniraptors "parabirds" would be far more instructive and accurate 
than calling them "dinosaurs."

eric l.